A Survey of Art Forgeries

Transcription

1 Wesleyan University The Honors College A Survey of Art Forgeries by Matthew D. Young Class of 2009 A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wesleyan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Departmental Honors in Philosophy Middletown, Connecticut April, 2009

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 3 Introduction... 4 Chapter One: Four Studies... 7 Chapter Two: The Moral Issues Chapter Three: The Aesthetic Issues Chapter Four: The Moral and the Aesthetic Bibliography

3 Acknowledgements To Berel Lang, my thesis advisor, for always offering assistance when assistance was needed, for keeping me in check and for your guidance and direction while still ensuring that my thought prevailed, I could not have asked for anything more. Thank you. To Peter Lewis of the University of Edinburgh, for introducing me to the greater topic of aesthetics and to the study of forgeries, without whom I would not have written this, thank you. To my friends, for your undying support and relentless encouragement, you have all made this process as tolerable and easy as it could be. Thank you. To my grandparents, your unconditional belief in me throughout the years has meant more to me than you could ever know. Thank you. And to my parents, for having me pave my own path, for allowing me to pursue an education of my choosing that culminates with this paper, and for teaching me to love and cherish critical thought at such a young age, thank you. 3

4 Introduction How would you feel if, upon reading an article, you discovered that it was a chapter ripped from this paper with someone else intentionally credited as the author? Or, upon inserting a CD of British pianist Joyce Hatto s rendition of a Chopin concerto into your computer, the itunes software reads it as having been recorded by a little-known pianist with the tempo only slightly digitally increased? 1 Or, if you have purchased a work thought to be an original Peter Paul Rubens and you now discover that many details in its composition were not painted by Rubens, but by his apprentices? 2 Each of these is an instance of forgery what you get is neither what you expect nor what you paid for. Over the past half-century, the issue of forgery has become a topic within aesthetics receiving more and more attention. An art forgery is any artwork that, by an intentional act, is publicly known by an inaccurate provenance the authorship and the time/place of origin of an artwork. The existence of forgeries is a sensitive one; there is no situation where a forgery, if intended to breach and establish itself as an authentic work within the art world, is welcome. Art, as an institution, mandates accuracy in provenance. The study, selling and progression of art is reliant on this accuracy. By nature, forgeries violate this. In the first chapter of this paper, I recount four factual instances of forgery. The first of these is Han van Meegeren s 1937 Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus, which he released into the art market as a genuine Johannes Vermeer masterpiece. 1 Denis Dutton, Shoot the Piano Player, New York Times, Feb. 26, Kristin Lohse Belkin, Rubens (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998),

5 Van Meegeren is, among contemporary or near-contemporary artists, the most celebrated forger and Disciples at Emmaus is the most notorious and in my view philosophically relevant recent forgery. Disciples was initially sold for the current equivalent of $4 million. The second instance of forgery that I consider is the Amarna Princess, a combined effort of British forger Shaun Greenhalgh and his parents in Falsely alleged to be an ancient Egyptian relic, it was initially sold for over 400,000. Then, James Macpherson s epic poems, Fingal (1761) and Temora (1763) are discussed. These poems were, in part, genuine. They were released as fully genuine ancient Gaelic poems, but, as partially contrived by Macpherson, are forgeries. Lastly, Marius Casadesus 1933 Adélaïde Concerto is recounted. This work was released into the art world as an authentic Mozart composition. What sets this instance apart is that Casadesus did not initially intend to forge the idea came to him when a critic thought his work was a Mozart. In the second chapter, I deal with the moral issues raised by art forgeries in general. Inherent to forgeries is the intent to deceive, and this, juxtaposed with an examination of what it means to lie, leads to the contention that all art forgeries are lies. After establishing this equation, the concept of art forgeries is split up into two comprehensive groups: physical forgeries (forgeries that are physically identical to an original work) and forgeries of style (forgeries in the style of a different artist/time period, but not identical to any genuine work). By examining each of these groups, the relation of forgeries to lies is affirmed. After a brief examination on their ethical standing, forgeries are concluded to be inherently moral wrongs, though they may nonetheless possess other types of value. 5

6 In the third chapter, the central question regarding forgeries is addressed: the aesthetic wrongs of forgeries are considered. Here, I divide possible responses to the issue at hand into three classifications. First is the possibility that there is nothing aesthetically wrong with a forgery, and Alfred Lessing s view is discussed and evaluated as representative of this response. Second is the possibility that there is something aesthetically wrong with a forgery, which stems from perceptual differences, and Monroe Beardsley and Nelson Goodman s arguments are assessed. Third is the possibility that there is an aesthetic wrong with forgery that is due to something imperceptible, namely, by its claiming to possess an inaccurate artistic achievement. Colin Radford and Denis Dutton are discussed and evaluated as responding in this way, and I find myself falling into this final group. In doing so, I subscribe to Arthur Danto s theory of the artworld: a proper viewing of art is achieved only within a theory of art. In this regard, a forgery is a work maintaining a false historicity. In my final chapter, I examine the relation, if one exists, between the moral and aesthetic issues of art forgeries. The four instances from Chapter One and general philosophical consideration point to a positive correlation between both problems. The issues addressed here first consider whether or not a causal relationship could exist in either direction. Then, in order to relate the two, outside factors that may affect both sets of issues are considered, and it is concluded that the moral and aesthetic issues of art forgeries are positively linked by the mere existence of the artworld. Both are positively affected by what it means to attend to an artwork as an artwork, and the existence of a positive correlation is affirmed. 6

7 Chapter One: Four Studies There have been an unknown number of attempted and successful art forgeries. Despite some incredible artworks being exposed as forgeries, the best forgeries are still displayed in museums worldwide and remain undiscovered. The presence of forgeries in the art world is an unwelcome one as they undermine much of what the art world relies on for both sustenance and progression: an accurate documentation of origin. This encompasses both the artist and the time/place of the work s creation. In this first chapter, I will recount four instances of forgeries. My principal criterion in deciding which four forgeries to recount was that I wished them to be from different artistic disciplines. Clearly, there is much more to art than just drawing and painting, and no artistic discipline is free from forgeries threat. The first forgery I chose was Han van Meegeren s Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus, released as a Johannes Vermeer original. Van Meegeren s forgery is probably the most well-known and frequently studied of all artistic forgeries, especially as of recently. Numerous books chronicling van Meegeren s life and recounting his technique of forgery have been published, and most philosophical articles on forgeries comment on his forgery. So, inclusion of this instance seemed like a logical choice. Leaving the realm of painting, I next chose a forgery philosophically similar to van Meegeren s Disciples at Emmaus. Shaun Greenhalgh s Amarna Princess was passed off as an ancient Egyptian sculpture. Greenhalgh, carrying out his scheme with his parents assistance, was highly talented in that his forgeries that infiltrated the art world spanned numerous disciplines. In both of these instances, there was no reason to forge other than for personal gain and, after 7

8 knowledge of the works spuriousness became public, all of the value that they once had was immediately lost. Then, I sought to vary both the intentions of the forger and the consequences of outing a forgery as such. I next recap Fingal and Temora, James Macpherson s Gaelic epic poems. Presented to be wholly authentic, these two works were determined to be partially spurious by nature. Today, the poems are recognized by some as significant pieces of literature. In the same vein, the fourth recounted tale of forgery is Marius Casadesus Adélaïde Concerto, a composition he claimed, though not premeditatedly, was a Mozart when, in fact, he was the composer. To some degree, the Adélaïde Concerto is circulating around the musical world and is still occasionally performed. Han van Meegeren s Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus In probably the most notorious artistic forgery to date, Han van Meegeren turned the artworld upside down in the early 20 th century. His successful forging of the great Johannes Vermeer of Delft demonstrated that the present danger posed by forgeries runs far deeper than had generally been assumed. Van Meegeren proved adept at forging the style of other old masters as well, but he is remembered best in museum and art histories for his various, at the time successful, forgeries of Vermeer. Remarkable enough in its own right, van Meegeren s Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus was hailed not only as a Vermeer, but as the masterpiece of Vermeer by leading Vermeer scholar Abraham Bredius. 3 Admittedly, Van Meegeren s status as an artist after the forgeries were uncovered was continually contested by two camps: 3 Abraham Bredius, A New Vermeer, The Burlington Magazine (Nov. 1937),

9 one holding to the contention that van Meegeren was a brilliant artist, the other thinking of him as nothing more than a con-man who took advantage of both popular artistic tastes and widespread ignorance. No matter how he is now classified, the fact remains that were it not for the combination of carelessness and audacity of van Meegeren in selling a forgery to Hermann Göring, his forgeries might not have been exposed to this day. Van Meegeren was always convinced that he possessed great artistic talent even if the rest of the world did not recognize this. He was known, especially within the Netherlands, as a talented artist best known for his 1921 Hertje ( The Deer ), but he was never able elevate himself to membership in the artistic elite. He formed his style from revered artists, Vermeer being one, but his own work still did not receive the public appreciation or fame he sought. Van Meegeren s motivation for forging emanated from this fact, as we learn from his trial proceedings. He stated, upon outing himself as a forger, that driven half distracted by my anxiety as a result of these considerations, I determined to revenge myself on the critics, by proving that they had underestimated me. 4 Van Meegeren s goals were clear. He wished to paint a work that would be publicly honored and venerated as great under the name of a prolific artist but that would be later revealed to have been painted by him. The critics would then either have to admit their original misjudgment of the work, an extraordinarily unlikely occurrence, or acknowledge that van Meegeren was truly a great artist, level with Vermeer. Wanting to make the entire art world look foolish, van Meegeren would not be satisfied with just conning a wealthy buyer. Satisfaction would come when 4 Sepp Schüller, Forgers, Dealers, Experts (New York: G.P. Putnam s Sons, 1959), 97. 9

10 one of his paintings hung under someone else s name in a Dutch national collection. 5 Clearly, van Meegeren s main objective was not monetary gain. With such specific goals in mind, van Meegeren set out to create someone else s masterpiece. His decision to paint a Vermeer was an easy one. Van Meegeren had long studied Vermeer s style and works and had previously, with limited success, imitated Vermeer. Perhaps it was van Meegeren s propensity to blunder that pushed him to choose an artist with an established style and artistic education 6 or to his great reverence for the Dutch masters, but regardless, Vermeer was an ambitious selection. Today, only 35 paintings are generally attributed to Vermeer, and the number in the 1930s was not much different. Compared to most classically honored painters, then, Vermeer s oeuvre was small. There was a notable lack of continuity in his works, as they divided into works of his youth and works of his maturity. It was almost as though he suddenly changed gears and to everyone s bewilderment, altered his style. When he entered his later period, his great works started to emerge, with The Milkmaid as the first work in the latter classification. 7 It would be no easy task to recreate Vermeer s missing link if there is one, as only three of Vermeer s known works are dated, and so van Meegeren could not just logically splice a painting into Vermeer s timeline. In order to bridge the gap, not only was a Vermeer to be created, but a Vermeer objectively distinct from all other Vermeers. Should van Meegeren be successful in this regard, he would be filling in the missing pages of Vermeer s story that were begging to be filled in and jumpstarting the study of the master s works in a new, although incorrect, direction. Art critics and Vermeer 5 Edward Dolnick. The Forger s Spell (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), P. B. Coremans, Van Meegeren s Faked Vermeers and De Hooghs (London: Cassel & Co, 1949), Dolnick,

11 experts had been actively hoping that a missing link between the youthful works and the mature works would surface, and van Meegeren intended to provide just that. Forging the Vermeerian missing link would prove no easy task. First a subject must be chosen, and the sheer poetry and brilliance of van Meegeren s selection can only be marveled at. When van Meegeren was still painting as van Meegeren, he held an exhibition in 1922 of his biblically inspired works. Whereas he sold all his works, he was also quite harshly criticized, especially in regard to his depiction of Christ. One of his criticized paintings was entitled Christ at Emmaus 8, and this reception certainly added to his bitterness towards art critics. The denouncing of van Meegeren s own depiction of Christ at Emmaus pushed him towards the choice of this same subject. Perhaps prompted by art historians hints of a link between Vermeer and Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, van Meegeren based his depiction on Caravaggio s second version of the moment, which instead of the more commonplace illustration of the moment of revelation, portrays a moment before it. A much subtler painting would be right in line with the depiction that Vermeer might have chosen had he actually painted the moment. 9 With this idea in mind, the tangible work began. Van Meegeren traveled around Holland searching for a painting from the 17 th century that was on its original stretcher the wooden backing to a painting to keep the canvas firm. He purchased The Raising of Lazarus (painter unknown), removed the stretcher, scraped off the painting in its entirety and cut down the canvas to a desirable size. Beginning to paint with paints he designed especially to pass alcohol tests and with brushes that would 8 Ibid Ibid

12 have been used in the 17 th century, he attempted to portray the serenity and expressions that a Vermeer exudes, and reused many artifacts and lighting techniques that were trademark of Vermeer. Van Meegeren proceeded to work on this painting for a period of around half a year, and he concluded with a masterful signature. To age the paint artificially, he heated his work in an oven for two hours and bent it over his knees to induce age craquelure, which emerges in paintings as a person s wrinkles do with aging. He filled the cracks with ink to emulate dirt, intentionally damaged and blemished parts of the painting, and the work was complete. 10 As the undercover painter of Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus, van Meegeren could not simply release the work into the art world. Through Gerard A. Boon, a well-respected lawyer with an immaculate record and a belief that Disciples was authentic, his Vermeer was placed in front of Abraham Bredius, the era s leading Vermeer scholar. Immediately, Bredius expressed awe at what he thought was the true beauty of the work. Despite later consternation in regard to the true provenance of the work 11, he initially extolled the work in superlative terms, calling it the masterpiece of Vermeer. 12 For the art world, Bredius excitement and certainty over the provenance of van Meegeren s work was a stamp of authenticity. Despite the fact that Edward Fowles and Armand Lowengard, two top Parisian art critics, immediately proclaimed the work a forgery 13, Bredius himself garnered the support of much of the art world and initiated a movement to raise funds to purchase the work for Museum Boymans in Rotterdam. Bredius opinion proved to be enough for the 10 Ibid Ibid Bredius, Dolnick,

13 work s success, and the initial exhibition featuring Disciples left all art lovers in awe, with the work considered a great Vermeer masterpiece for years afterward. Despite his intention to humiliate the public art world by outing himself as Disciples forger, it is unclear to this day whether van Meegeren s identity would have become known if not for his own pride and greed. By his own admission, because his later forgeries sold just as Disciples did (presently 17 works are definitively categorized as van Meegeren forgeries), he did not put as much time or care into them, and he was not nearly as proud of them. 14 Each successive forgery became easier for van Meegeren to sell. As a Dutch painter during a time of the Nazi Germany occupation of Holland, van Meegeren resented the Nazi leaders both for the occupation and for their looting of Dutch artworks and valuable possessions. Hermann Göring, the number two in Nazi command behind only Hitler, fancied himself a connoisseur of art. His interest in art was so great that, while invading Holland, it was unclear whether Göring s priorities lay in gaining control over the tactical Dutch airstrips, valuable for controlling vital trade routes, or acquiring Dutch artwork. 15 No artwork would be more prized then a genuine Vermeer; no matter how much power and prominence the Nazi regime attained, the scarcity of Vermeers could not be overcome. Recognizing this intense desire, van Meegeren sold Christ with the Adulteress, a Vermeer forgery, to Göring through the Nazi art dealer Alois Miedl. This was a poor forgery that experts could easily recognize, but Göring s desire for a Vermeer overshadowed this, 14 Coremans, Dolnick,

14 and van Meegeren received 1.65 million gulden (approximately $7 million today) for the work. 16 In the aftermath of World War II, the fact of having sold a Vermeer to Göring, a leader of the hostile occupying German power, was enough to legally constitute high treason under Dutch law, and, on October 29, 1947, van Meegeren was brought to trial. While on trial, he became nervous and in a passionate confession proclaimed that the work sold to Göring was no Vermeer, but a van Meegeren. Furthermore, he added that a number of other works, including the now world-renowned Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus, were also the creations not of Vermeer but of van Meegeren. 17 In order to prove that he was in fact the true artist of the Vermeer paintings, in September, 1945, while in prison, he painted one final forgery for an expert panel, entitled Young Jesus Preaching in the Temple. He was acquitted on this basis and then acquitted of the charge of treason, but he was subsequently charged and convicted of fraud for signing Vermeer s name on his works; this carried a year sentence in prison, and he refused to finish the painting. Those who saw van Meegeren s final forgery had mixed reactions to Disciples. First, some critics were disgusted that a work as inauthentic as Disciples could have received so many accolades, but to others, the true authorship was irrelevant and the painting continued to be just as great as when it was thought to be a Vermeer. 18 Just because van Meegeren claimed to be the painter was insufficient to prove that it was true. The elaborate scientific testing that should have been initially 16 Schüller, Ibid Ibid

15 performed on the works van Meegeren claimed were forgeries would be finally performed to validate his statements in trial. To the naked eye, all the alleged forgeries seemed to have been the work of the same artist. Despite a convincing crackle network, the paint layer was flat and smooth and dampness was not in the cracks, both of which would not be the case in a genuinely old painting. 19 A further evaluation using scientific means was, however, required in order to fully judge on the actual provenance of the painting. X-ray examination of the image was extraordinarily telling in that many of van Meegeren s claims were validated: the canvas was cut for size, the old stretcher was used, certain overpaints over a different work were verified, and the visible crackle was artificially induced. 20 Spectroscopy found cobalt blue in the paints that van Meegeren used, which was not used in Vermeer s time. 21 It became abundantly clear that Vermeer was not the true artist of the questioned works. Despite these results, not everyone thought that all the works van Meegeren claimed as his, namely Christ and the Disciples at Emmaus and The Last Supper II, were indeed his forgeries; some critics claimed that he was simply attempting to swindle the art world by taking credit for what were Vermeer masterpieces. Jean Decoen led the hopeful charge against the scientific examiners on the basis that the study was faulty in regard to these two works. He claimed that Disciples and The Last Supper II do not contain paint with cobalt blue as the other works do, that the structure and material match those of works universally ascribed to Vermeer, that the signature on Disciples is perfect and authentic, and that the figures and techniques to 19 Coremans, Ibid Ibid

16 produce them match Vermeer s. 22 This seems to be wishful thinking, however, as the scientific evidence concerning the spuriousness of the works is incontrovertible. Decoen s arguments suggest that her biggest goal was to prevent the destruction of all the forged works, which would be entailed by ancient Dutch law. 23 After these tests, considerable doubt was cast on the provenance of these two works; coupled with the fact that van Meegeren s description of an artificial resin matched perfectly with the scientific findings, a 1959 Viennese study conclusively showed that The Last Supper II was in fact a van Meegeren 24, and there has since been no serious attempt to attribute Disciples to anyone other then to van Meegeren. The Greenhalgh Family Conspiracy the Amarna Princess Commonly known as the Garden Shed Gang or as the Artful Codgers, the breadth of forged works that the unlikely Greenhalgh trio leaked into the art world between 1989 and 2006 is breathtaking. Working together, they produced an unknown number of paintings, sculptures and artifacts, all with fabricated provenances. The central figure, Shaun Greenhalgh, was the artist of the family. His mother Olive was the initial over-the-phone contact with unsuspecting potential buyers. His father, George, a frail figure constrained to a wheelchair, was the acting salesman and provided painstaking research for devising stories about the origins of each artwork they sold. 25 The conspiracy began in 1989 when George brought a small silver object with what he claimed was an Old English inscription on a true 22 Jean Decoen, Back to the Truth (Rotterdam: A.D. Donker, 195), Ibid Schüller, Edward Chadwick, Antiques Rogue Show: Update, The Bolton News, Nov ( Update). 16

17 cross relic to Manchester University. It was concluded that the object was a fake, but that the wood may have been genuine. George received 100 and the forgery business began. 26 As the artist, Shaun s motivation for duping the art world well over 100 times has never been explained. Hypotheses about that motivation are not hard to come by. Shaun was relatively meek and stocky in appearance; he never held a true job and his inability to swim led to his rejection by the Royal Marines. The one thing he did possess was extraordinary artistic talent unconfined to a single discipline. 27 Despite having 500,000 saved in the bank accumulated from selling their forgeries, the Greenhalghs opted to live in abject poverty 28, remaining in Bolton, England and apparently saving their profits for a rainy day. The family did not own a computer and lived as if they were poor. 29 Profit, though perhaps an initial motivation, was of no great concern to the Greenhalgh s. Rather, a public shaming or embarrassment of the art world seems to have been the Greenhalgh s primary incentive. Detective Sergeant Vernon Rapley of the Metropolitan Police Arts and Antiques Unit gave his opinion on Shaun s motives. We [in the police force] believe Shaun is a failed creator who had no success selling his work because, as he saw it, he had not been to art school and did not know the right people. He realized he could make more money conning the art market. He wanted to show them up, and to a degree he succeeded. Shaun s resentment and bitterness towards the art market and the art world drove him 26 David Ward, How garden shed fakers fooled the art world, The Guardian, Nov. 17, 2007 ( 27 Sophie Grove, Fake it Till You Make It, Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2007 ( 28 James Kelly, Fraudsters who resented the art market, BBC News, Nov ( 29 The Guardian, Nov. 17,

18 to manufacture historically missing works of art and integrate them into the market. The believable back-stories and provenances with which Shaun s works were presented allowed the deception to succeed. Their most lucrative forgery was the 2003 Amarna Princess, a statue in the ancient Amarna Egyptian style that sold to the Bolton museum for almost 440,000. Claiming upon his arrest in November, 2007 to have completed the statue in about three weeks, Shaun used a mallet and chisel and dyed the statue with tea and clay to give a façade of age. Using genuine Egyptian alabaster, the Amarna Princess was 52 cm high and was devoid of arms, legs and a head. There is a pleated, regal robe on the body. The statue was to represent one of the daughters of the Pharoah Akhenaten and his queen, Nefertiti, who had been artistically idolized prior. 30 The purported provenance of the Amarna Princess that accompanied the work was thoroughly convincing. The work was claimed to have been in the family for generations, having been bought by George s grandfather at a sale in Silverton Park, Devon at the home of the 4 th Earl of Egremont. Presented for validation was a genuine catalogue from this 1892 sale, which had a few vaguely described ancient Egyptian works that could have matched the Amarna Princess. George claimed his grandfather bought a number of the Egyptian sculptures listed in the catalogue, and carefully constructed letters to sustain the story that it had remained a family heirloom. 31 In 2002, George took his son s forgery to the Bolton Museum, presenting his heirloom and the meticulously researched purchase tale. He brought the statue and claimed that it had been valued at 500. The Amarna Princess was taken to 30 Angela P. Thomas, The Amarna Princess, Nemes: The Egyptology Society, (March 2004). 31 BBC News, Nov. 16,

19 Christie s and the British Museum, where it was judged to be genuine and was dated to around 1350 B.C. Two similar statues were on display in the Louvre in Paris and in Philadelphia that were used as a basis for comparison in the validation. 32 The initial reaction towards the work after this authentication was pure ecstasy. The Amarna Princess was put on display as the centerpiece of the Bolton Museum s famous Egyptology exhibit and it was commonly assumed that interest in the exhibit would be renewed with the purchase of the work; it had already been on display for about three months in the Queen s Hayward Gallery. There was a hopeful aura around the purchase. Angela Thomas, curator of the museum s Egyptology section, claimed that [the Amarna Princess] may lead on to us getting further funds to do more with the Egyptology section. 33 Stephen Johnson, head of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, claimed that an ancient relic had been rescued, and that the purchase of the Amarna Princess shows what fantastic and surprising objects, long part of our history, still need urgent funding to keep them in the UK. 34 Bolton Council s Executive Member for Culture Laurie Williamson exclaimed that [the purchase] was a once in a lifetime opportunity to secure an important Egyptian treasure. 35 A blunder by the Greenhalgh trio caused the honeymoon to end in the art world. In 2005, George brought a piece of an Assyrian stone frieze that he claimed to be 2700 years old and in his family since 1892 to the British museum. Suspicion on 32 The Bolton News, Nov. 17, Statuette to be Star of Show in Town s Museum, This is Lancashire, Jan. 30, 2004 ( 34 Corinne Field, 3000-Year-Old Princess Bought by Bolton Museum & Art Gallery, 24 Hour Museum, Sept ( 35 Museum secures rare Egyptian sculpture, BBC News, Sept ( 19

20 part of the authenticators was raised when George intimated he would be willing to sell the fragment for 500,000. Upon closer inspection, there were slight design inconsistencies within the frieze, but more importantly, there was a spelling mistake in the Mesopotamian cuneiform. A Greenhalgh forgery had finally been outed, and a full blown investigation of the Greenhalghs commenced. 36 When the police searched their Bolton residence, it strongly resembled an art warehouse, with incomplete works and specialized artistic materials sprawled throughout. Among the works subsequently judged to have been a forgery was the Amarna Princess. All the Garden Shed Gang pled guilty in 2005 at the Bolton Crown Court to defrauding art institutions and other buyers over 17 years as well as to conspiracy to launder money (the proceeds from the sale of the Amarna Princess) to the city of Bolton. 37 The forged works were immediately taken off display. The Bolton Museum released a statement claiming that they had not directly given money for the Amarna Princess and that all proper guidelines were followed in authenticating what later turned out to be a forgery. No blame could be assumed about their blunder, and the Bolton Museum expected to receive federal compensation. 38 Because of the breadth and success of the Greenhalgh scam, the presiding judge proposed that some of the 36 Cahal Milmo, Family of forgers fool art world with beautifully crafted fakes, New Zealand Herald, Nov. 19, ( 37 Elderly couple, son sentenced for creating knockoff art and antiques for 17 years, International Herald Tribune, Nov ( Forgery.php). 38 Amarna Princess Statement, Bolton Museums, (Jun. 12, 2008). 20

21 forgeries should be saved in order to instruct experts in how better to detect forgeries. 39 James Macpherson s Ossian Epics 18 th century Scotland did not have an epic poem. Conventional wisdom dictated that an epic poem accompanies major social change and severe nationalistic pride. Greece had Homer and his Iliad and Odyssey, Italy had Dante s Divine Comedy and England saw John Milton s Paradise Lost arise not more than 20 years after the English Civil War. The necessity for repairing the lack of an epic was never called into question; the concern was how this might occur. Either the missing epic would be written in the modern day or a missing epic would be discovered. 40 Naturally, the latter was preferred, and the Scottish were hopeful that their epic would be unearthed. In the preface to Fragments of Ancient Poetry (1760), Professor Hugh Blair (of the University of Edinburgh and eventual mentor to Macpherson) posited that there is reason to hope that one work of considerable length, and which deserves to be styled an heroic poem, might be recovered and translated, 41 and many agreed with Blair in this regard. James Macpherson, a fledgling poet, had not received the acclaim he desired at the start of his literary career. He published the ambitious heroic poem The Highlander (1758) and translated a poem from Gaelic which was shown to and won the admiration of Professor Blair. Following that, Macpherson published Fragments 39 British man given 2-year suspended sentence in art forgery case, The Canadian Press, Jan. 29, 2008 ( 40 K. K. Ruthven, Faking Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001), James Macpherson, The Poems of Ossian and Related Works (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1996), 6. 21

22 of Ancient Poetry (1760) from various manuscripts of Gaelic poetry he had gathered from the Scottish highlands, and Blair wrote the preface to this publication. Why Macpherson set out to discover the missing Scottish epic is not fully known. Certainly the widespread desire for unearthing a national epic had some influence, as did what he saw as the failure of his reputation as a genius poet. Also, after publishing his Fragments, Blair convinced Macpherson that the Scottish epic not only existed, but resided in relation to the heroic fragments that Macpherson possessed. 42 Even if Macpherson did not believe what Blair was convinced of, there was a widespread desire for more original Gaelic poetry. Blair, in his fervent support of the project, attempted to convince Macpherson to travel through the Highlands in pursuit of ancient poetry in either manuscript or oral form. Much to Blair s chagrin, Macpherson declined for financial reasons. Immediately, Blair arranged a dinner in Edinburgh to rally those likely to support such a project, and everyone in attendance was enthused by the idea. All were willing to make nominal donations, and Macpherson accepted the project. 43 The trips took place between August, 1760 and January, 1761, and Macpherson traveled to Wester Ross, Skye, North Uist, South Uist, Benbecula, Mull and Argyll in his pursuit for the Scottish epic. Immediately upon the conclusion of his trip through the Highlands, Macpherson claimed his good fortune in attaining a relatively complete, epic poem. 44 The found poem was supposedly authored and narrated by Ossian, a blind bard. Notwithstanding the excitement stirred by this information, skeptics quickly surfaced. 42 James Porter, Bring Me the Head of James Macpherson, Journal of American Folklore 114(454), Fiona Stafford, The Sublime Savage (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1988), Ruthven, 7. 22

23 After all, it is even less likely for a blind bard to have composed an epic poem than for the poem to have been hidden for centuries upon centuries. The ensuing debate about the authenticity of the released poems, Fingal (1761, a poem in six books) and Temora (1763, a poem in eight books) was not based exclusively on scholarship. The already severe tension between the English and the Scottish undoubtedly seeped into the critiques of these works. The prevailing anti-scottish feeling in England was so great that a law had been implemented August 1, 1747, stating that any visible tartan was to be punished by a six month imprisonment. 45 Even within Scotland, Temora did not receive the same critical acclaim as did Fingal, which had large influence not only within Scotland, but internationally as well. The timing was perfect for these publications. Macpherson was the first translator and the first to introduce ancient Gaelic poetry to the masses. 46 Since there were few expectations for the epic that Macpherson found, he was able to create them. An interest in Scottish and Celtic poetry was reinvigorated with a greater passion than had been prevalent before these two releases, and within a year of their publication, the entirety of the poems were translated into nearly every European language. They received praise from the highest places, which in turn evoked harsh rebuttals from equally esteemed authorities. Matthew Arnold, one of the most respected poets/critics of the time, recognized that it was exceedingly unlikely that the entirety of the epic Macpherson produced had been found and that some compilation and splicing had undoubtedly been required for the full publication. But this was no deterring factor; looking beyond the modern additions, Arnold argued, 45 The Centenary of Ossian, Macmillan s Magazine 74 (1896: May/Oct), John S. Smart, James Macpherson (London: D. Nutt, 1905),

24 there will still be left a residue with the very soul of Celtic genius in it, and has the proud distinction of having brought this soul of Celtic genius into contact with the genius of the nations of modern Europe, and enriched all our poetry by it. 47 This response was more typical than not of the widespread European attitude and reaction towards the Ossian epics. Samuel Johnson was perhaps the most vocal critic of the Ossian epics and repeatedly challenged their authenticity. He maintained that Macpherson published Fingal and Temora to satisfy Highlander longings for a national epic. 48 Johnson attacked the poems authenticity on multiple fronts, although he did not request a formal investigation. He simply maintained that the poems, because not wholly genuine, had no merit. He believed that there were no original manuscripts, and demanded that they, if truly existent, be presented along with a proof of authenticity. Furthermore, he asserted that no man of integrity could recite six lines of the original Ossian, and that the Ossianic poems only existed in the form published by Macpherson, but never at any other point in history. 49 Johnson appealed to psychological reasoning, claiming that if Macpherson had not introduced the manuscript but maintained that his work was derivative from an oral tradition, then his argument would be more believable. 50 Johnson validated his challenge by traveling through the Hebrides and Scottish Highlands and, after going door to door (ironically, speaking no Gaelic), he found no reason to change his beliefs on the questionable authenticity. Although he did not perform a rigorous empirical study, it 47 Principal Shairp, Ossian, Macmillan s Magazine, 24(1871: May/Oct) Porter, Shairp, Howard Gaskill, Ossian Revisited (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1991), 7. 24

25 made Johnson a visible and dangerous critic. It has since been proven that manuscripts do exist of the Ossianic poetry, and many Highlanders are capable of reciting lines of the poems. Further issues exist now, as well. Various other investigators have tried to come across and translate Ossianic poetry, but they never attained more than fragmented manuscripts, and thus attained limited success. 51 Whereas Macpherson was not very active in the debate incited by Johnson, Blair certainly was. He sent out numerous letters to Highland families questioning their knowledge, if any, of the Ossianic poems. One notable response from (an unrelated) McPherson of Strathmashie is very direct in supporting the authenticity of Macpherson s work. He discussed how poems from his oral tradition were transcribed in conversation, as were manuscripts. The letter notes that the published Ossianic poems were very much in line with what he knows to be true. 52 Other letters in the same vein were received, and it seemed rash to completely discredit Macpherson s publication, even if it was not entirely original. In response to the debate, the Highland Society of Scotland took up the inquiry, and took a route similar to Blair s. Many people subsequently traveled through the Highlands and asked locals to recite poems, which they did with various degrees of success. Upon examination of various correspondences among all those involved in the debate, an extensive report was released in The Society found that the characters and events were not Macpherson s invention, but today it seems clear that Macpherson spliced original material of his own into what he found. However, it remains impossible to know how much is authentic and how much is 51 Smart, Shairp,

26 forged. Still, the discovery of the original manuscripts seemed imperative. In an effort to meet this demand, Macpherson s Gaelic notes were given to the Highland Society of London, who published the Gaelic Ossian. Since this publication, few people have sufficient knowledge of Gaelic poetry to judge the controversy and even fewer are willing to devote the massive amount of time that such an undertaking would necessitate. 53 This difficulty led to the prevailing public belief that the entirety of Macpherson s work is a forgery, despite evidence pointing towards to the contrary. Then, in 1862, the Dean of Lismore published a book containing manuscripts dating back to the 16 th century. Of these 65 translated manuscripts, nine are directly attributed to Ossian. The existence of these is enough to potentially affirm that Macpherson had found them in his travels. 54 Many similar themes occur in Macpherson s publications and these manuscripts, including allusions to St. Patrick and to the Apostle of Irish Christianity. It would be wise to err on the side of caution in using these similarities in evaluating Macpherson s work, since surely he would have made similar allusions if the work was a forgery. All major scholars, despite this, regarded Macpherson s work as the translation of these manuscripts. The debate over authenticity obscured the question at hand, making an appropriate evaluation difficult. That is, did Macpherson come across an epic poem, or did he fuse smaller poems himself? Fingal and Temora were presented as direct translations from Gaelic manuscripts and oral tradition. Furthermore, how valid was the attribution to Ossian as the author? Ibid Ibid The Centenary of Ossian,

27 Despite the fact that there were few rules about plagiarism and the practice that a loose translation might still be presented as a translation, it is clear that Macpherson did intend to deceive his audience to some extent. The fact that Ossian is not the sole author of the works is not the issue at hand, though. Having some of the work originate in Macpherson s imagination depreciates the mystique created by the existence of an ancient, unknown epic poem, and certainly the poems lose some of their appeal 56, although the literary merit of the works is not the critical concern. The main issue in relation to the question of forgery stems from disappointment the Scottish faced if the epic poem thought to be real was then shown to be only partially authentic. Today, Macpherson is thought of as a collector of manuscripts and old poems rather than a forger. 57 Critics exist, though, who still consider Macpherson a forger. However, if he were nothing more than a forger, the European influence he had and the debate he stirred could not be understood. Full authenticity, perhaps, cannot be measured in the short-run, and the necessity for it can only be measured in how a work is viewed upon coming to terms with its actual provenance. Marius Casadesus Adélaïde Concerto Marius Casadesus, the composer of the 1933 Adélaïde Concerto, did not set out to forge a Mozart masterpiece. Hailing from a family of prominent musicians, Casadesus already had a public name for himself. It was not uncommon for him to compose a classical-sounding piece and subsequently to rework it into a more 56 J. B. Price, James Macpherson s Ossian, Contemporary Review 188(1955: July/Dec), The Centenary of Ossian,

28 modern-sounding one, performing it in front of many prominent musicians, conductors, critics, etc. In this particular instance, Casadesus was content with the piece after his classical phase of composition, so he performed it with himself on violin and a friend on keyboard. Upon playing it, Casadesus asked who the crowd believed composed the work, and he was met with an emphatic, definitive Mozart. Casadesus claimed that I did not want to say no right away. I started to say that I had orchestrated it and was about to tell the whole truth. But they kept insisting it was Mozart. 58 The immediate reception of the work was extremely enthusiastic. On December 27, 1931, it was played publicly for the first time as a previously unknown work of Mozart at the insistence of Albert Wolff, a prominent Parisian conductor. The reception to this performance was unwavering. Musicologist and critic Alfred Bauchot stated at the performance, I must admit that I was a lot more skeptical at the beginning than at the end. Paul Le Flem, a major composer, had no reservations at any time. He claimed that This work brings us new revelations of the genius of Mozart. It took little time for Casadesus concerto to be listed in the Köchel Catalogue, a chronological listing of Mozart s work and more importantly in this case, a seal of authenticity on Casadesus work; it then also became a common part of the repertory of violinists worldwide. 59 To be accepted in the musical world, a believable story must be presented with the written composition. The work was released by Casadesus on two scores 58 Marius Casadesus Suing Over Concerto by Mozart, New York Times, Aug. 16, Ibid. 28

29 with an accompanying dedication, 60 which dates the work to 26 May In turn, the account was given that Mozart composed the symphony at the age of 10 and dedicated it to the daughter of King Louis XV of France, Madame Marie-Adélaïde. The story went as follows: traveling to Vienna from Amsterdam, Mozart and his family stopped at a Parisian circus. Princess Marie-Adélaïde, having heard of the young Mozart, was skeptical of the great talents attributed to the young boy and requested that a concerto be composed in her presence. Mozart did not complete the concerto, but he left a partially completed sketch of it. Madame Marie-Adélaïde fled to Naples during the French Revolution, and the manuscript then remained in a private royal collection. Casadesus was selected to complete the unfinished concerto, which he claimed to have devoted all of his efforts to. 61 The original manuscript and the dedication of a 10-year-old Mozart did stir some doubt. First and foremost, no one, including the leading Mozart experts and the publishers of the Concerto, had personally seen the original partial manuscript because it was purported to be in a private collection. Furthermore, expert Alfred Einstein raised questions over the work s provenance. He first questioned why it was missing from the 1768 catalogue that Leopold Mozart composed for his son. Einstein questioned the dedication on the grounds that Mozart would not dedicate an unfinished work. Despite this, Einstein made no definitive judgment on the spurious or authentic nature of the Adélaïde Concerto Gerald Abraham, et. al., The Mozart Companion: A Symposium by Leading Mozart Scholars (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1956), Mozart s Adelaide Concerto by Menuhin and Paris Symphony Under Monteux, New York Times, Mar. 10, Dennis Pajot, KV.Anh294a Adelaide Violin Concerto, MozartForum Articles, 29

30 The date of the dedication does seem to raise some issues. In Mozart s father s catalogue, the earliest work listed was composed in 1773, which surely cannot be accurate. 63 Other musicologists, such as Friedrich Blume, separated the work and the dedication, claiming that the work was entirely too similar to many of Mozart s other works to be inauthentic and that any dedication discrepancies should be evaluated independently of the work itself 64 : a work claimed to be a genuine Mozart cannot be rejected merely as a result of this inconsistency. Mozart notably composed five concertos between April and July of 1775 which reflect a great deal about his musical development. Mozart made a huge musical leap between this time and October, 1775, and it was considered not farfetched to assume that the Adélaïde Concerto could have been situated in this growing process. 65 The music world seemed to agree. Yehudi Menuhin and the Paris Symphony Orchestra recorded the Adélaïde Concerto to great critical acclaim. Any critiques that were made of the recording referred solely to the musicianship and not to the composition of the piece played. 66 The Adélaïde Concerto became equated with violin excellence and was performed on the top stages worldwide as for example, when the Russian violinist, Robert Kitain, performed the Adélaïde Concerto at Carnegie Hall in December, The criticism of his performance was based on the performer s inadequacies, not on shortcomings of the work. In fact, the Adélaïde Concerto accentuated many of Kitain s abilities as a violinist, and the authenticity of 63 Abraham, Abraham, New York Times, Mar. 10, Noel Straus, Robert Kitain Heard in a Violin Recital, New York Times, Dec. 20,